The point is that it has the potential to raise consciousness. This is something that prof. Dawkins highlights in his "The God Delusion." If any of you are curious about where the atheist is coming from, you don't need to look any further than that book.

And if you have God on one side of the spectrum and Darwin on the other, and you seek explanatory power, books about evolution and biology like "The Blind Watchmaker" and "The Selfish Gene" will certainly enlighten you with facts and plausible theories about the origins of life and help you to decide which way to turn.

I am currently reading Dawkins's 30th anniversary edition of The Selfish Gene. It is mesmerising! By the way, here is an enlightening video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vhoP2YPbyI

[ Post made via Android ]

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

I found Genesis and the Big Bang by Gerald L. Schroeder, Ph.D. An interesting read. A Jewish father explaining to his son, The discovery of harmony between Modern Science and The Bible. I don't believe in todays religion, but Schroeder's debate that science and the old Bible say the same about the origin of the universe might interest some of our members.

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

An updated, speculative exegesis does not validate religious claims at all. But I understand that there are a lot of hopefuls out there doing their best to arrange a marriage between science and religion.

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

Lol! Once you realise what Einstein meant by that, you really have nothing to thank Hagart for. First of all, the first clause is dealing with "Einsteinian religion," not the religion that you are thinking of. You see, Einstein was in awe of the universe and the wonders that science revealed. A sort of atheistic pantheism, if you prefer, very much akin to Spinoza's. And like Spinoza, Einstein did not believe in a personal God.

The second clause really refers to religion, as in...RELIGION! And it is blind because it is without science. Thus Einstein did not imply that science is lame without Christianity, Judaism, Islam and the rest. He meant that you have to be in awe of nature, the universe, and enjoy the scientific method itself in order to not find science lame.

[ Post made via Android ]

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

All this amounts to something simple, on both the side of atheism and religion: I'm right and you're wrong, and I'm betting my life on it. Try to convince someone who is invested so heavily in something that they are wrong, and they will kick you hard.

Right and wrong? Not necessarily. Atheists merely say there is no good reason to believe. God is simply absent. Theists believe based on faith - which is basically jumping to conclusions and often claiming to know without evidence. Does lack of evidence mean that theists are wrong when they say there is a God? Of course not. There could be one who created the universe. But the fallacy lies in the theistic argument when they have nothing to back up their claims and expect the rest of us to believe! So much so that the president is forced to publicly say, "God Bless America" or "In God we trust." and then we have children being labelled "Christian," "Muslim," "Jew," "Hindu," "Sikh," etc.

There could be a god but it will definitely not be one that interferes in our affairs and cares about what we do. It would be a deistic one. But there is also no reason to postulate a deity that created us and does not care. There is no reason to postulate a deity at all. Scientific theory can conceive of many ways in which the universe could have come about without the need of a Creator.

Try to think in terms of what is more probable. Is the universe the product of natural inevitability or the product of magic by a supernatural Being?

Atheism is the most tenable position, though. Why should anyone believe in something without evidence (especially when the evidence available strongly points to the contrary)?

Where are you on this scale, Inedible?

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."